Posted on 04/02/2003 8:51:10 AM PST by NormsRevenge
The Prime Minister's comments over the Iraq war have drawn a sharp rebuke from the United States Embassy, which last night described them as "regrettable".
That is strong criticism in diplomatic language.
The offending statements were Helen Clark's expressed view at the weekend that the war would not have happened had Democrat Al Gore been elected president.
In a subsequent press conference about the comments, she said the war did not appear to be going to plan.
Political opponents have accused her of being anti-American, of further jeopardising a free-trade deal, and of making inappropriate comments about President's Bush's unsuccessful rival.
Neither the Prime Minister nor the embassy would say whether the United States had conveyed disappointment or disapproval to her or the Government over her comments.
Helen Clark's response, through a spokesman, was: "We often receive follow-up inquiries after sensational news reports and we cheerfully respond to them."
But the United States embassy public affairs officer, Bill Millman, said simply: "The Prime Minister's statement was regrettable," a comment which almost certainly would have been approved by senior diplomats.
Asked if "the statement" referred to Mr Gore or to the war not going to plan, he indicated both.
Earlier, under questioning in Parliament, Helen Clark had dismissed the impact of the Gore comments as "neither here nor there".
She continued to find herself on the back foot yesterday over remarks on the Iraq war - which were reported in sections of the Arab press.
Act leader Richard Prebble suggested her comments were more in line with promoting a free-trade agreement with Syria rather than the United States.
Her comments on plans coming unstuck were reported in at least the Arab News, an English-language news service in Saudi Arabia and possibly on Iranian radio. Another comment, that Saddam Hussein might never be caught, was reported in the Khaleej Times, in the United Arab Emirates.
National leader Bill English said the Prime Minister discussed the war, "as if she is some kind of foreign correspondent", in ways that offended New Zealand's friends and allies.
Helen Clark said Australian Prime Minister John Howard was reported as saying that the US hopes for a popular uprising against Saddam were misguided.
"The fact is Mr Howard is in negotiation for a free trade agreement [with the United States]. That does not stop him telling the truth as he sees it about what is happening."
To accusations that she was damaging New Zealand's relationship with the United States, she said she had been stating only "the bleedingly obvious".
But she added that New Zealand valued its relationship with the US.
Earlier she had told reporters: "Let's be clear for the record. Saddam Hussein has an appalling regime. No one is going to be distressed about that going. It has all been about how this issue should have been handled from the outset.
"We hung in there for a diplomatic solution which was possible and, having seen everything that has happened since, I am convinced we hung out for the right objective."
Actually, she's probably correct - Al Gore probably would never have taken action after 9/11 to counter threats to this country, compounding four years of his inaction on top of eight years of Clinton's inaction.
Actually, she is right about this, although not for the reasons she believes.
Clark attacked in Australian newspaper editorial
02.04.2003 3pm
Prime Minister Helen Clark has made a distinction between New Zealand and Australia's stances over war in Iraq which is odious and wrong, The Australian newspaper says in an editorial today.
Helen Clark has said that she places principle above politics and does not care if her opposition to the war in Iraq reduces the chance of a free trade agreement with the United States, the paper says.
It quotes her: "The Government does not trade the lives of young New Zealanders for a war it does not believe in order to secure some material advantage."
This distinction between New Zealand and Australia, which has forces in Iraq and is negotiating a free trade agreement with the US, is "obvious, odious and plain wrong," The Australian says.
"Our forces have fought with the US over the decades without a trade agreement and doubtless would be serving in the Middle East even if trade talks had not started in Canberra last month."
The diplomatic push that led to last month's first round of negotiations began in the earliest days of the Bush administration, before the September 11 terrorist attacks of 2001 activated the US-Australian alliance.
"While it might surprise Miss Clark, the Australian Government can simultaneously walk and chew gum and has always kept trade policy and national security separate."
Just because the two countries are firm friends does not mean the trade talks will be any easier, the paper says.
"In so theatrically asserting that there was ever any possibility of trading guns for butter, Miss Clark conveniently overlooks the stark fact that New Zealand's trade strategy is not prospering. She says New Zealand's preference is for general trade reform but the next day the WTO (World Trade Organisation) announced that negotiations on agricultural trade reform were deadlocked.
"Nor did Miss Clark mention that she had unsuccessfully sought a free trade deal with the US in March 2002. She had then urged Australia not to forget New Zealand in its own negotiations with the Americans. With an economy that has slipped from ninth to 20th on the OECD rankings of industrialised nations since 1970, New Zealand can afford the high moral ground but very little else."
The Australian is owned by the Rupert Murdoch-controlled News Ltd. It has been a strong supporter of Australia's involvement in the Iraq war and long been a critic of New Zealand's defence policies.
- NZPA
I'll get an edit on it.
The offending statements were Helen Clark's expressed view at the weekend that the war would not have happened had Democrat Al Gore been elected president.
She’s absolutely right. There would be no war in Iraq if Gore had been elected.
There would likely be hundreds of thousands of war casualties in NYC, Chicago, LA, St. Louis, Philly, etc., but no Iraqi citizens would be endangered.
When the French *unilaterally* destroyed a Greenpeace vesssel in New Zealand, it outraged voters and brought the Socialists to power.
Thanks again, guys.
I can think of many reasons to be glad W is in charge.
In a subsequent press conference about the comments, she said the war did not appear to be going to plan.
Well, she is right on the first one. We would not have gone to war if Algore was President. He would still be allowing France to run the show at the UN. On the second part, I am wondering when the JCOFS took the time to give this stupid bit*h a briefing on just what our war plans were. Another stupid, no know nothing spuing off at the mouth, talking about something she knows nothing about. Another lefty at work.
When did NZ take a dive politically?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.